> On Aug 5, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Joe Stringer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5 August 2015 at 10:53, Jarno Rajahalme <[email protected]> wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <[email protected]> >> --- >> lib/classifier.c | 7 +++---- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/classifier.c b/lib/classifier.c >> index fc6a1f5..cba80b5 100644 >> --- a/lib/classifier.c >> +++ b/lib/classifier.c >> @@ -283,11 +283,10 @@ cls_rule_is_catchall(const struct cls_rule *rule) >> return minimask_is_catchall(rule->match.mask); >> } >> >> -/* Makes rule invisible after 'version'. Once that version is made >> invisible >> - * (by changing the version parameter used in lookups), the rule should be >> - * actually removed via ovsrcu_postpone(). >> +/* Makes 'rule' invisible in 'remove_version'. Once that version is used in >> + * lookups, the rule should be actually removed via ovsrcu_postpone(). >> * >> - * 'rule_' must be in a classifier. */ >> + * 'rule' must be in a classifier. */ >> void >> cls_rule_make_invisible_in_version(const struct cls_rule *rule, >> cls_version_t remove_version) >> -- >> 2.1.4 >> > > When this says "should be", whose job is it to remove the rule via > ovsrcu_postpone()?
Typically by the same entity that made the rule invisible and bumped the lookup version number, i.e., the “owner” of the classifier. Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
